Reading comp PrepTest 104 · Section 2 · Question 20

Topic: Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Background info on bird status signaling (Birds fight for resources, some attributes may provide status without fights)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Cause-and-effect relationships:
    • Repeated aggressive interactions for food/shelter causes birds to gain social status based on fighting ability (first and second sentences); more intense and frequent interactions causes higher risks to birds (third sentence)
  • Comparisons:
    • Birds with attributes that reduce the need to fight without a loss of status are at an advantage over birds that need to fight to attain status (fourth sentence)
  • Examples of attributes that could provide status:
    • Plumage, which could be an external signal announcing fighting ability (last sentence)
  • Author attitude: "thus … at an advantage" (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Rohwer's studies on status signaling hypothesis (Harris sparrows with darker throats almost always win conflicts)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of "status signaling hypothesis (SSH):
    • Some external attributes may lead to fewer fights while preserving status (first sentence)
  • Comparison, according to Rohwer:
    • Harris sparrows with darker plumage almost always win conflicts, regardless of age/sex (second and last sentences)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's rebuttal of Rohwer's assertions (not supported by data)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparisons, according to the author:
    • Without controlling for age and sex, Harris sparrows with darker plumage won 57 and lost 18 conflicts; after controlling for these factors, they only won 63 and lost 62 conflicts (first sentence)
    • Adults are usually dark-throated and have higher status than juveniles, while juveniles with dyed throats have higher status than non-dyed juveniles (second sentence)
    • The darkness of plumage only signals that a bird is older and does not signal an individual bird's status within its age class (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "[h]owever … do not support" (first sentence); "only" (first sentence); "probably does" (second sentence); "usually" (second sentence); "are dominant" (second sentence); "do not signal" (last sentence); "cannot be properly included" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's hypothesis on titmouse (black-breast plumage stripe is the best evidence of status signaling)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Analysis has demonstrated that the greater the black-breast plumage stripe on a titmouse, the greater the status/success in aggressive interactions (last sentence)
    • Unlike Rohwer's sparrow example, the titmouse's stripe isn't correlated to any other factor (like age, sex, etc.) (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "[t]he best evidence" (first sentence); "strong correlation" (last sentence); "demonstrated) (last sentence); "the only variable that correlates with stripe" (last sentence)

Paragraph 5

• Paragraph note
  • Author's support for hypothesis (dummy experiment)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • One of three radio-controlled dummy birds was placed on a feeding tray, when a bird approached this dummy bird, the dummy was turned toward the live bird to display its breast stripe, which led to either submissive or aggressive behavior by the live bird depending on whether its stripe was larger or bigger than the dummy's, respectively (first through last sentences)
  • Author attitude: "ingenious" (first sentence); "provided further evidence" (first sentence)

Main Point: Although Rohwer's data do not support his assertion about Harris sparrow status signaling, we can find the best evidence for status signaling in the greater titmouse's breast stripe, which is strongly associated with status.

Paragraph 1, Sentences 4-5 (P1, S4-5) - Definition of status signaling

P2, S2 - Rohwer's data on status signaling in sparrows

P3, S1 - Author's rebuttal of Rohwer's data

P4, S2 - Author's data on signaling in the greater titmouse

Correcting the Record: This passage most closely fits the Correcting the Record Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author usually describes a misconception or false belief. The author will then explain why these beliefs are false. Occasionally, the author will conclude by offering an alternative belief.

That describes this passage quite well. The author presents Rohwer's misconception about status signaling for the Harris sparrow. Rohwer believed that "almost without exception," sparrows with darker throats won conflicts, even among birds of the same age and sex (P2, S2-3). The author clarifies that this is not supported by the data (P3, S1), before presenting evidence about the greater titmouse that does strongly suggest status signaling (P4, S2).

In a Correcting the Record passage, the main point is generally the author’s explanation of why the misconception is false (or just an assertion that the misconceptions are false). However, if the author provides an alternative belief, the main point is generally the author’s opinion about that belief. We leaned into the latter with our anticipated main point.

*Many other Meta-Structures could describe this passage, though! You may have gone with another Critical Meta-Structure, like Criticizing a Viewpoint or Rebutting Critics. (Note: There is considerable overlap between the Correcting the Record, Criticizing a Viewpoint, and Rebutting Critics Meta-Structures. Typically, when the passage frames the view the author corrects/rebuts as a misunderstanding or oversight, it’s best to consider the passage a Correcting the Record passage. If the view the author corrects/rebuts is presented as a criticism, it’s best to consider the passage a Rebutting Critics passage. If the author otherwise argues another view is wrong, unjustified, or misguided, it’s best to consider the passage a Criticizing a Viewpoint passage.) You may have also gone with a Descriptive Meta-Structure, like Generalization/Example (generalization: some attributes in birds can allow them to attain status without fighting; bad example: plumage in Harris sparrow; good example: plumage in greater titmouse). You could have even gone with Proposing a Hypothesis since status signaling is referred to as a hypothesis (P2, S1). Many options, all of them valid!

Comparison: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the comparison. We get comparisons of dark-plumed Harris sparrows to light-plumed sparrows, older sparrows to juvenile sparrows, and broad-breasted titmice and narrow-breasted titmice. The questions will likely ask about one or two of these comparisons, so highlighting the comparative words should help us locate the relevant details.

Oh, these flocking birds! Regardless of which Meta-Structure we noticed here, we should always pay special attention to the author's attitude and, especially, if they have a "But, actually…" or "Well, actually…" type of moment in the passage in which they say "other people say this, but actually, the real answer is this…" Here, this moment happens in the first sentence of the third paragraph, noting that, well, actually, the data do not show that Harris sparrows use signaling, but actually, the greater titmouse does! This is key to understanding the passage and its main point.